Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

From this we know Spock and Mitchell have worked together for a while and Kirk has known Mitchell since he joined Starfleet.

So either Spock and Mitchell served together on a ship before the Enterprise or they've been on the Enterprise together for over a year ( or two). Which might mean Kirk was the CO of the Enterprise for a year or two prior to WNMHGB.

Click to expand...

For no very good reason at all ( well actually because they heard someone, somewhere say that Stardate 1312, refers to 13th month 12th day of the mission they posit WNMHGB as being in the thirteenth month of the mission ( in 2265, since they thought the mission started in 2264 till Voyager nixed that) the episode is always assumed to be part of the five year mission. Spock spent most of his career serving with Pike of course ( and then some time on Earth with Leila Kalomi).

The Chronology is often too "on the nose" when it comes to dates.

Click to expand...

Oddly I find it woefully innacturate, ignoring any internal logic!!!!

The Chronology says:

After the five year mission, Kirk became Admiral and the Enterprise spent 2 1/2 years being refitted. There was not another five year mission before TMP.

This contradicts TMP. Not one character says this. It has obviously been 11 years since "Turnabout Intruder" from the look of the actors.

Click to expand...

Well... Kirk alludes to "five years out there...." then two and a half years as chief of Starfleet operations. Which taken at face value suggests after the televised five year mission Kirk was promoted to Admiral etc ( I like to think the poor Blighter got some extended shoreleave though..... ). The chronology seems confused about the point though, given it suggests TMP is 18 months after the five year mission based on Enterprise's refit time.

The Chronology says:

TAS isn't canon.

Yes it is.

Click to expand...

Hell, yeah!!!!

With the Eugenics wars thing, not too bothered. Seems they have stuck with the 90's in references in Enterprise and the movies so fair enough. Wouldn't really of cared if they retconned it to the twenty first century ( hardly difficult given the third world war predicted ). At least its not like Doctor Whos infamous UNIT dating .
These days the implication seems to be that despite massive death tolls in multiple countries in Africa, Asia and the middle east with various petty dictators throwing regions into upheaval the west was largely untouched..... That strikes a chord somehow

I should think it was obvious from the get-go that Trek must be occurring in an alternate timeline. Otherwise why would they not be aware that there was a tv show that covered the same events they're living through?

After the five year mission, Kirk became Admiral and the Enterprise spent 2 1/2 years being refitted. There was not another five year mission before TMP.

This contradicts TMP. Not one character says this. It has obviously been 11 years since "Turnabout Intruder" from the look of the actors.

Click to expand...

KIRK: My experience. Five years out there, dealing with unknowns like this.

That one line establishes that there was just one five-year mission under Kirk.

The Chronology says:

TAS isn't canon.

Yes it is.

Click to expand...

Certainly as much as any of the other series' and movies "happened". But I doubt "The Magicks of Megas Tu" happened in the same Trek universe as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and things get really dicey when you realize they both made half of Voyager's 75-year journey in no time at all.

Regarding the Eugenics Wars, let's note the occasional plural. There are plenty of conflicting references to these, and even the introductory episode only vaguely speaks of an "era" of which the 1990s are a part. To limit the Wars (or even the War) to the reign of Khan Singh, 1993-1996, would probably be contrary to the sum total of evidence.

The one outright contradiction among the diverse error is the "Dr Bashir, I Presume" bit about Khan himself only having been created 200 years prior to DS9, not more like 350. There'd be nothing particularly wrong about the Eugenics Wars having continued till that later date, say.

That one line establishes that there was just one five-year mission under Kirk.

Click to expand...

The worrisome thing about this is that it sort of also suggests Kirk never spent more than five years out there dealing with V'Ger-like unknowns. Did his entire Starfleet career indeed consist of the TOS five-year mission, plus desk work?

That doesn't ring true at all. Kirk went to strange new worlds in his youth, too (say, "A Private Little War" backstory), even if his earliest years were spent doing instructor work at the Academy.

I guess we have to interpret Kirk's TMP words as "five years out there dealing with unknowns like that in the role of a starship CO", as opposed to "in the role of a starship security officer" or whatever. Which still isn't completely satisfactory, because it suggests Kirk never commanded any starship before TOS. Or then we can narrow it down further, with Kirk saying "five years out there in truly deep space" which rules out his previous commands of lesser starships or other such spacecraft. But if we keep on doing that, we can basically water down all of Kirk's rambling and remove all power of evidence from the statement. Say, perhaps Kirk only counts his second five-year mission because the first one was such a let-down and doesn't look good in his resume?

The worrisome thing about this is that it sort of also suggests Kirk never spent more than five years out there dealing with V'Ger-like unknowns. Did his entire Starfleet career indeed consist of the TOS five-year mission, plus desk work?

That doesn't ring true at all. Kirk went to strange new worlds in his youth, too (say, "A Private Little War" backstory), even if his earliest years were spent doing instructor work at the Academy.

I guess we have to interpret Kirk's TMP words as "five years out there dealing with unknowns like that in the role of a starship CO", as opposed to "in the role of a starship security officer" or whatever. Which still isn't completely satisfactory, because it suggests Kirk never commanded any starship before TOS. Or then we can narrow it down further, with Kirk saying "five years out there in truly deep space" which rules out his previous commands of lesser starships or other such spacecraft. But if we keep on doing that, we can basically water down all of Kirk's rambling and remove all power of evidence from the statement. Say, perhaps Kirk only counts his second five-year mission because the first one was such a let-down and doesn't look good in his resume?

Click to expand...

Why is the idea that Enterprise was Kirks first command unsatisfactory? there seems to be no reason why it wouldn't be. Sulu's first command is the Excelsior which is a pretty important vessel by Starfleets standards and one of the whole reasons Kirk was able to take command from Decker was that Decker, who was about to captain the refit of Enterprise ( again very high prestige one assumes ) had no actual command experience.
Seem that Starfleet is happy to put young and untested commanders in charge of important vessels.

Sulu's first command is the Excelsior which is a pretty important vessel by Starfleets standards

Click to expand...

Do we know for a fact that it is his first command? All we know from TUC is that he commanded her for three years at that point. There is a sizable gap between TFF and TUC (I think about 9 years, but I think its about 6 in the Okuda Chronology), which leaves a few years for a first command, perhaps a destroyer class vessel as a commander.

Not seeing the problem, myself. And I know both versions of Trek backwards.

But then, I don't have pathological anti-Abrams hatred blinding me.

Click to expand...

None of it is real. It's a collection of six television series (five live action, one animated) and 12 movies, written and produced by many different people over a 50 year period.

Bond fans don't throw a hissy fit because Felix Leiter is suddenly black in Casino Royale. I wonder why Trekkies are so uptight about canon?

Click to expand...

Have you surveyed all Bond fans? Every one of them? Isn't it statistically probable that some aren't happy about that? (personally I wouldn't know, since I have never managed to sit all the way through any Bond movie)

Bond fans don't throw a hissy fit because Felix Leiter is suddenly black in Casino Royale. I wonder why Trekkies are so uptight about canon?

Click to expand...

Bond fans are already having hissy fits over rumors of Idris Elba playing Bond (not too likely, the way he has gained weight since THE WIRE he would probably look like Yaphet Kotto by the time Craig left.) I've about given up on Bond because of Craig and the wholesale character assassination in CASINO and SKYFALL, which almost make Roger Boore films look okay.

On the other hand, I have little or no problem with Nolan's Batflicks, and as Lt. Arex would say, on the third hand (can't take credit for that one, David Gerrold wrote it a quarter-century back) I find Abrams' efforts offensive and stupid.

And if you want some real uptight arguments about what constitutes canon, look to Doctor Who fans.....

Click to expand...

The only serious canon issues I have with Doctor Who is the utter stupidity of saying the Doctor is half-human, and they haven't been able to cast a decent Master since Anthony Ainley (although I read something about Derek Jacobi playing one of the Master's incarnations? Haven't seen the last 2 seasons of Who, so not sure about that).

Actually it does annoy me when Who fans say something is canon because it said so in one of the specials shown in the UK and nowhere else, or that it was one of the audio adventures that are hard to come by (especially at a decent price) here in Canada.

Therefore, any canon I'm familiar with says Romana stayed in E-Space, and had nothing to do with the war that destroyed Gallifrey...

Where to start?.....
Doctor Who does not have any official statement on Canon ( well beyond the statement that the BBC produced Games produced to tie in with season five were canon)
So fans have debated what constitutes canon back and forth.

In the Early nineties, the Doctor Who New adventures were published by Virgin books, and touted as the official continuation of the series, fully authorised and and approved, Following the TV movie the BBC, seeing a market took back the books and published their own official BBC Doctor Who novels these novels largely were written by the same authors and shared continuity between the two series.

Then along came the Audios that you mentioned and at one point they were implied to be in a separate continuity to the competing books ( with regard to the then current Eighth Doctor at the very least).

With the new series, fans argue endlessly about the canon status of the books and the Audios - as well as yes, the charity skits that have been produced for CIN etc. Hilariously arguments based on chronology or continuity fall flat, since there is no one criteria that fits anything neatly.
So there are those who espouse only the TV series ( with problems due to the Charity skits and the aforementioned games - which had continuity issues with the series as well) Those who champion the books and or the audios ( a rallying cry of "ITs All Canon" (leading to arguments about continuity problems galore, not least that the Story Human nature would have occured twice with two different Doctors )
Also those that dispute the TV Movie ( but not the eighth Doctor himself ), or indeed the new series.

Some perhaps savvier fans have taken to the position "there is no Canon"

Star Trek fans have it easy compared to that, with a body of work that is considered official. As far as I can see canon wise the only real points of contention are the tie-ins to the Abramverse and the Animated Series, and even with the Animated series despite Gene Roddenbury denouncing it ( as he did for STV and STIV though no one takes that seriously) It certainly seems to be canon with it being referenced in Enteprise ( and with more to follow if they had carried on allegedly).

BTW if you saw the Tennant story Utopia, in Season 3 THAT was where Jacobi played the Master... for about five minutes before regenerating into John Simm.

Where to start?.....
Doctor Who does not have any official statement on Canon (well beyond the statement that the BBC produced Games produced to tie in with season five were canon)
So fans have debated what constitutes canon back and forth.

In the Early nineties, the Doctor Who New adventures were published by Virgin books, and touted as the official continuation of the series, fully authorised and and approved, Following the TV movie the BBC, seeing a market took back the books and published their own official BBC Doctor Who novels these novels largely were written by the same authors and shared continuity between the two series.

Then along came the Audios that you mentioned and at one point they were implied to be in a separate continuity to the competing books ( with regard to the then current Eighth Doctor at the very least).

With the new series, fans argue endlessly about the canon status of the books and the Audios - as well as yes, the charity skits that have been produced for CIN etc. Hilariously arguments based on chronology or continuity fall flat, since there is no one criteria that fits anything neatly.
So there are those who espouse only the TV series ( with problems due to the Charity skits and the aforementioned games - which had continuity issues with the series as well) Those who champion the books and or the audios ( a rallying cry of "ITs All Canon" (leading to arguments about continuity problems galore, not least that the Story Human nature would have occured twice with two different Doctors )
Also those that dispute the TV Movie ( but not the eighth Doctor himself ), or indeed the new series.

Some perhaps savvier fans have taken to the position "there is no Canon"

Star Trek fans have it easy compared to that, with a body of work that is considered official. As far as I can see canon wise the only real points of contention are the tie-ins to the Abramverse and the Animated Series, and even with the Animated series despite Gene Roddenbury denouncing it ( as he did for STV and STIV though no one takes that seriously) It certainly seems to be canon with it being referenced in Enteprise ( and with more to follow if they had carried on allegedly).

BTW if you saw the Tennant story Utopia, in Season 3 THAT was where Jacobi played the Master... for about five minutes before regenerating into John Simm.

Click to expand...

Ohcripes. Where do I start?

First... it annoys me no end to see this "Season 1, 2, 3, etc." applied to the series as a whole when referring to Doctors #9, 10, and 11. William Hartnell was the Doctor during the first 3 seasons. Then it was Patrick Troughton for the next 3. Jon Pertwee for the next 5. Tom Baker had 7 seasons. And so on. The traditional way to keep track of the stories within each Doctor's tenure is (for example) "the 6th season of the 4th Doctor/Tom Baker's 6th season".

I'm unfamiliar with any Doctor Who games, except for a board game (4th Doctor) and a couple of RPG gaming guides produced for the 5th and 7th Doctors. I assume the ones you're referring to are computer games or online?

I've seen the New Adventures books, and avoided any that don't have companions I saw on TV. To me it just doesn't feel "right" to consider any Companion to be official if I haven't seen that individual on TV. I'm sure people who don't mind that, though, appreciated the continuation of the stories.

I have a lot of other Doctor Who books that say "This adventure takes place between the TV stories ____ and ____." I do enjoy those.

But for canon-bending weirdness, what about the novel Who Killed Kennedy? I defy anyone to make THAT one fit in anywhere!

Add me to those who love the Eighth Doctor himself, even like the potential Companions Grace and Chang Lee, but loathe the actual plot of the movie. The crap portrayal of the Master (who should never be played by a non-British actor), the scientific illiteracy (even for Doctor Who, which tends to rely a lot on Whovian technobabble), the whole "magic" crap of the Millennium, which wasn't even the real one, and this sudden, "Oh, btw, I'm half-Human" nonsense... I prefer to think the Doctor regenerated into the very dashing Paul McGann, who spent the rest of the movie in a really bad hallucination.

What Roddenberry did or did not consider canon is something that changed over the years. As some have said here, sometimes it depended on which company owned which rights, and which products were actually making money. I always considered TAS to be canon, which is why I cannot consider Enterprise to be canon since it violates so much of what was established in TAS (ie. Captain/Commodore April). And I applaud anyone who disavows the mess that was Star Trek V.

And no, I haven't seen the Tennant story you mention. There are some of his stories I have never seen, either because at the time they were shown I didn't have a working TV, or because I might have had a working TV but no access to the channel it was on. And anyway, Doctor Who ceased to be "must-see" for me after it all turned into a soap opera All About Rose (that's a similar reason why I don't tend to like most of the Sylvester McCoy stories - they're All About Ace). The only Who stuff I've seen the past couple of years is when there's been a holiday marathon (yes, I sat through over 20 hours of Tennant and Smith episodes over Christmas/Boxing Day).

EDIT: Wanted to ask: What is the canon status of the Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover comics?

I'm unfamiliar with any Doctor Who games, except for a board game (4th Doctor) and a couple of RPG gaming guides produced for the 5th and 7th Doctors. I assume the ones you're referring to are computer games or online?

Click to expand...

They are free online games offered by the BBC Doctor Who website, I think they were made available outside the Uk by steam or some-such. They are to date the only things that are officially stated to be Canon ( and do have continuity errors, that make them difficult to reconcile with the TV show, Ironically).

What Roddenberry did or did not consider canon is something that changed over the years. As some have said here, sometimes it depended on which company owned which rights, and which products were actually making money. I always considered TAS to be canon, which is why I cannot consider Enterprise to be canon since it violates so much of what was established in TAS (ie. Captain/Commodore April). And I applaud anyone who disavows the mess that was Star Trek V.

Click to expand...

As with the continuity clashes with the aforementioned games, this again touches on something often missed in discussions of Canon, the difference between Canon ( which body of works are official and refered to in other stories) and Continuity ( making sure a series is internally consistent).

Continuity is not actually linked to Canon, for example both Assignment Earth and Turnabout Intruder are canon.
Continuity would be the thing that makes sure that someone disintegrated by a rogue starfleet captain in the end of the second season does not turn up in your season three finale, for example . The fact that TAS is canon would not mean that Enterprise wasn't even if there are continuity clashes ( I have to say though I am not entirely sure how Robert April in TAS clashes with Enterprise?)

Equally separate is actual Chronology, which is the order episodes are placed and when they are dated too ( though obviously continuity plays a role in this). For example the Okuda's placing TOS in broadcast order, or placing TWOK in 2285. everyone accepts the stories as canon ( well I assume so anyway) but when and in what order they occur is up for grabs.
There is no real reason not to place TOS largely in stardate order for example, given the general trend for Stardates to increase over time, or the placing of TWOK fifteen years after space seed.

As to the Trek/Who crossover - tipping my hand to my view on Who canon... Given no canon for Doctor Who by definition it is not canon and with Star Trek, well official sources say that spin offs such as books are not canon just what we see on the screen. So its not canon. That said its a rather good story ( would love to have seen more of Kirk and the fourth Doctor interacting though) and worth any fan of both series time.

I'm unfamiliar with any Doctor Who games, except for a board game (4th Doctor) and a couple of RPG gaming guides produced for the 5th and 7th Doctors. I assume the ones you're referring to are computer games or online?

Click to expand...

They are free online games offered by the BBC Doctor Who website, I think they were made available outside the Uk by steam or some-such. They are to date the only things that are officially stated to be Canon ( and do have continuity errors, that make them difficult to reconcile with the TV show, Ironically).

What Roddenberry did or did not consider canon is something that changed over the years. As some have said here, sometimes it depended on which company owned which rights, and which products were actually making money. I always considered TAS to be canon, which is why I cannot consider Enterprise to be canon since it violates so much of what was established in TAS (ie. Captain/Commodore April). And I applaud anyone who disavows the mess that was Star Trek V.

Click to expand...

As with the continuity clashes with the aforementioned games, this again touches on something often missed in discussions of Canon, the difference between Canon ( which body of works are official and refered to in other stories) and Continuity ( making sure a series is internally consistent).

Continuity is not actually linked to Canon, for example both Assignment Earth and Turnabout Intruder are canon.
Continuity would be the thing that makes sure that someone disintegrated by a rogue starfleet captain in the end of the second season does not turn up in your season three finale, for example . The fact that TAS is canon would not mean that Enterprise wasn't even if there are continuity clashes ( I have to say though I am not entirely sure how Robert April in TAS clashes with Enterprise?)

Equally separate is actual Chronology, which is the order episodes are placed and when they are dated too ( though obviously continuity plays a role in this). For example the Okuda's placing TOS in broadcast order, or placing TWOK in 2285. everyone accepts the stories as canon ( well I assume so anyway) but when and in what order they occur is up for grabs.
There is no real reason not to place TOS largely in stardate order for example, given the general trend for Stardates to increase over time, or the placing of TWOK fifteen years after space seed.

As to the Trek/Who crossover - tipping my hand to my view on Who canon... Given no canon for Doctor Who by definition it is not canon and with Star Trek, well official sources say that spin offs such as books are not canon just what we see on the screen. So its not canon. That said its a rather good story ( would love to have seen more of Kirk and the fourth Doctor interacting though) and worth any fan of both series time.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link for the games? I'd be interested in checking that out. Of course, with my luck it might not be available to Canadians...

I never noticed a dead crewmember showing up later in Turnabout Intruder! Mind you, I did notice Kirk making a new doorway for himself when he left the briefing room. I don't understand your reference to Assignment: Earth, though. What am I missing?

Robert April clashes with Enterprise because Robert April was the first Captain of the Enterprise. Not some twit named Jonathan Archer. If they'd used April and Sarah Poole in the Enterprise series (with or without the dog; I liked Porthos), I wouldn't have complained half as much. I'd still have complained about the stupid stories, but not about who the Captain was.

I've never been an Exact Chronology purist, in the sense of freaking out over stardates. I never did get to watch TOS in its original broadcast order, so it was a very interesting revelation to me to find out that the first episode shown is not the one originally intended, and definitely not the first one shot.

As for seeing Kirk and the Fourth Doctor interacting... that's what fanfiction is for (and I've read some really good ones).

April was the first captain of the Constitution-class Enterprise, NCC-1701. The establishment of the NX-01 doesn't change that, and April was included in the Okuda chronology despite being established in TAS.

Also, the Okuda chronology put TOS in production order, not broadcast.

I never noticed a dead crewmember showing up later in Turnabout Intruder! Mind you, I did notice Kirk making a new doorway for himself when he left the briefing room. I don't understand your reference to Assignment: Earth, though. What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Actually meant "The Omega Glory" not Assignment Earth, in which poor Lt Galloway is killed by Ron Tracy. He shows up in Turnabout intruder.
( Lt Leslie also came back from the dead, following having his blood drained in Obsession, but at least he was not vaporized - often wondered whether he had a craving for the blood of the living afterwards though....)

Robert April clashes with Enterprise because Robert April was the first Captain of the Enterprise. Not some twit named Jonathan Archer. If they'd used April and Sarah Poole in the Enterprise series (with or without the dog; I liked Porthos), I wouldn't have complained half as much. I'd still have complained about the stupid stories, but not about who the Captain was.

Click to expand...

In fairness April was the first captain of USS Enterprise NCC-1701, with the NX 01 simply being a different ship. in terms of continuity Sarah April being said to be the first CMO on a warp capable ship is probably a bigger glitch ( and contradicted by earlier TAS episodes by for example the presence of the Bonaventure).
Again this harkens to the difference between canon and continuity - maybe after seeing years of UNIT dating debates, I'm just more jaded....